Rating: 
Summary: A highly enjoyable de-bunking of orthodox archeology.
Review: This is a fascinating, wonderful, fun read from start to finish, as Hancock shows clearly--through myth and astronomy--the fallacy of the notion that civilization began 6000 years ago. Orthodox egyptologists, with their noses in the dirt, hate books like Fingerprints. They mistrust astronomy because they don't understand it or don't want to, nor do they enjoy seeing their arbitrary theories challenged. Read it with an open mind. One caution--Hancock uses Hamlet's Mill as a major reference for proof of ancient knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes, and that's fine. But don't bother wading through Hamlet's Mill looking for accurate myth interpretation, other than the astronomy aspect. It's a boring, worldly, mundane interpretation of mythology that disregards and denies the mystical essence and the real events from which world mythology flows.
Rating: 
Summary: A subject of great debates...
Review: To ask questions and seek for answers is a solely human trait - trait that lead to great discoveries and meteorite speed of technical and intellectual progress of modern times. However, to spread new knowledge and theories, if they contradict accepted conventions is equally difficult: it's a "prejudice" of all highly developed societies to acknowledge that their theories on creation and development of civilization might well be wrong or that it's finally time to doubt them. History numerously proves that it's easier to reject and ignore than to refute. This book can be rejected or its theories refuted, but it can't be silently ignored.As the headline for this book I can mention author's words: "I'm just following the science where it leads me... If my findings are in conflicts with their theory about the rise of civilization then maybe it Ã’ time to re-evaluate that theory". Indeed, some aspects of the book's topics (eternal questions of "who are we", "who were our ancestors", "what is the message of ancient civilizations", "what stands behind stupendous monuments of Incas, Mayas, Egyptians", "why ancient mythologies have so much in common", "are civilizations cyclic and are we heading for a disaster'' etc) made me wonder, some I didn't quite grasp (e.g. part on solar equinoxes and solstices, precessions of earth and ecliptic cycles), a few seemed to be a little farfetched, but overwhelming flow of new information made me eager to investigate further, to doubt the facts we usually read in textbooks and also to express support to the author by writing this. It was a genuine pleasure for me to read a very comprehensible and persuasive account on travels, research and evidence Mr. Hancock carried out. I truly admire his courage and devotion. His theories are fascinating, logical and stand on the basis of new (or old, but "unnoticed") facts and research carried out by various scientists in archeology, astronomy, geology and anthropology. Although I have a great interest on research and new theory, I hardly belong to the credible lot and flow of info during last couple of years (especially all the "year 2000" craze), taught me to view very critical all these pseudo-scientific and simply laughable theories. This author is not blabbering some nonsense that Pyramids were built by Martians or were used to pump water, or that Ice Age was caused by a nuclear explosion or that dinosaurs died of flu. But 4 stars account for the ending of the book: theories, however persuasive and alluring, were left hanging in the air, and singular message suddenly became supreme: that there was a civilization, equal in development to our own, although different in thinking, ca BC 11 000 that wanted to warn us about a recurring natural catastrophe. It seems we've had enough of this "last judgment" staff, even if it's going to occur. To my opinion, other questions initiated by the author were of much more interest. However, the book should definitely be read (and judging by a hundred of reviews it is read and causes lively discussions) as a tribute to spread quest for truth and knowledge in the name of the progress of our own civilization (oops, do I sound like Fox Mulder here?)
Rating:
Summary: Eye Opening
Review: This was the book that opened my eyes to the whole "alternative history" movement. The world seemed so mundane before this! I think I even got stronger in my religion (Islam) because of feelings initially stirred from reading this. I'm grateful to Hancock for leading me to John Anthony West, R.A. Schwaller de Lubiscz, Robert Bauval, Charles Hapgood and the brilliant Clesson Harvey among others. A truly amazing read!
Rating: 
Summary: Entertainment - Not Science
Review: Everyone who gave this book one star should realize that this book is entertainment. Hancock is not a scientist or an academic of any kind - he's a journalist! He raises some interesting questions and then goes on to provide answers. Some are plausible, most are not, and none of them have any hard evidence. Of course Hancock tailors the facts to fit his theories - he is not constrained by truth, science, or even ethics. He is a journalist. If you are interested in some of the real science, go to the real sources. Read Hapgood's Map of the Ancient Sea Kings, and Path to the Poles. Don't accept Hancock's interpretations, read the origionals. Hapgood wasn't the greatest scholar, but he presented his theories in a scientific way. Hancock's an entertainer, and a capitalist. This book, and all those like it that preach pseudo-science, appeal to the majority of people in this world who are scientifically challenged. Most Americans don't have enough scientific knowledge to understand the technology they face everyday, much less untangle the fact and fantasy in this book. It is entertainment, but it's dangerous - science interpreted by a journalist!
Rating:
Summary: we all should think in new directions
Review: The biggest purpose this book serves: it reminds us that what has been seen as truth might actually be totally flawed. We should all open our minds and try to think in new directions - don;t get yourself stuck with "Established" knowledges and beliefs!
Rating: 
Summary: Intriguing but flawed thesis
Review: I read this from the point of view of someone who believes that there is more about humanity than history has revealed. Therefore my expectation was to find out whether Hancock's book (recommended by my mother) would reveal anything to further convince me of my intuition. Although Hancock did reveal a few intriguing points about the possibility of some ancient but technologically advanced civilization, I found many of his arguments inherently flawed.
In looking at something as profound as this, one should always try to detach oneself from the argument. Yet Hancock's bias clearly shows through. All the endless rhetorical questions that he bombarded the reader with suggested that he was searching only for evidence that supports his position. In other words, does he consider evidence to the contrary? He makes it sound as if there is some conspiracy of Egyptologists of hiding the truth. Are they really just idiots, or is there simply more evidence to suggest the contrary of Hancock's thesis?
I also noticed that Hancock's thesis can be really convincing if read by someone who doesn't have a firm foundation in Egyptian history. There is also an over-dependence on how the Giza pyramids are aligned to Orion's belt. I'm not sure how that type of thing is calculated. I have a feeling that it's simply educated guesswork because I don't think the Egyptians mentioned specifically about this alignment. And if they were so keen on "transmitting the message", why not make it more obvious? Why not plaster the walls with pictures (which are as universal, and certainly more readily accessible) as mathematics.
Another thing I don't understand, and this could be due to my own ignorance, is about the over-reliance on the constellations. When I look at the skies at night, I see stars. Thousands of them, allegedly, but the patterns don't really bounce of the sky. In fact, I don't think you can see a lion or a fish or a ram without someone telling you what the pattern looks like. Yet Hancock's thesis suggested that the Sphinx is the ancients' way of telling us that the sun rises in the constellation of Leo at their time. If they were so keen on making sure that their messages gets transmitted, why were they so certain that their descendents would also see a lion just as they did? Isn't that a bit risky?
And finally: numerology. Numbers can be fun to play with, and certainly in the entire history of science and mathematics, we can find a lot of significant numbers. Maybe some of that is right, but maybe not. Again, it's educated guesswork. Hancock's entire thesis relied heavily on precession. I found it risky.
My own guess is that we have both underestimated and overestimated the past. We underestimate them by assuming that they cannot possibly do anything as marvelous as the Giza and Mayan pyramids. They must have been assisted or even built entirely by some ancient race. Hancock wrote about the unlikelihood of the Egyptian civilization to spring into existence so abruptly, but then where did his hypothetical civilization spring up from? Doesn't this just defer the question further back in time?
I found Hancock's final millennium/armaggedon ending a bit tasteless. If you can convince them through argument, shock them into persuasion, right? The verdict is certainly out there, and Hancock has managed to convince me that perhaps we should do more research in Antarctica, and other places. But his arguments require a real leap of faith, one that doesn't really seem convincing given the foundation that he builds his thesis on.
Rating:
Summary: A Great Read, but leaves questions unanswered
Review: This was the fastest 500 pages I've ever read, which is high praise for an "archaelogy book." But can it be called a work of archaelogy? There's no denying Hancock has a way of ending his chapters to hook the reader to the next, and the next... But to what end? That the remains of an unknown civilzation rests beneath 2 miles of ice in Antarctica? If that's true, shouldn't we be looking? If a "advanced seafaring race" evolved on Artarctica, why would their fingerprints lie so far away--that is, in Ancient Egypt? Wouldn't we expect to see their signs closer to home, say, in southern Africa, rather than northern Africa? And if the Sphinx really was constructed thousands of years before the First Dynasty of the Ancient Egyptians, how can we explain the face, which so clearly represents a dynastic king? Hancock suggests that the head of the Sphinx was "resculpted" thousands of years later, but what kind of people would perpetrate such an act of vandalism on a monument which Hancock himself suggests was passed down from the "time of the gods." This would constitute high blasphemy in any culture. There are many other contradictions and basic errors in logic in this book. For example, at point he suggests that the Sphinx represents not a lion's body, but a dog's (in reference to the numerous canine myths of doglike "civilizers"); then later he turns 180 degrees around and suggests that the Sphinx was intended to represent the zodiac sign of Leo (not to even mention how an ancient civilization 10,000 years before Christ would even know about the signs of the zodiac). The Orion connection also begs the question: if the three pyamids at Giza represent the "belt stars" wouldn't we expect to find corresponding monuments for the stars representing the "shoulders" and "legs" of Orion? Wouldn't this send a clearer message of the "star mapping" intent of its builders to future civilizations? Bauval's idea that pyramids are "instruments" meant to stimulate ideas about the mathematics and engineering for future civilizations sounds very nice and "new agey" but this is a subjective opinion with no basis in fact whatsoever. It's just a poetic construct. I could say the same thing about modern football stadiums, which are also built to exacting mathematical standards. The point is, that is not the intention of the builders, is it? Or is it?
Rating: 
Summary: ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS
Review: I bought Hancock's book, looking for some information on the pre-Diluvian theory many scholars support. WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY AND TIME. The first few chapters are really nice and intriguing; afterwards everything becomes useless. The book becomes more or less 'Hancock's Trip Diary'. He tells and retells about his visits to Mexico, Peru and others, and about the "amazing things" and "rare coincidences" he finds. CRAP. CRAP. CRAP. Even though he supports his points with references, they are not well built and developed. He never goes any deeper than saying "...could it be that bla bla bla?". Do not buy this book. It's absolute crap. One of the worst titles I've read, EVER. Not serious, not well researched (and founded mostly on Hancock's assumptions).
Rating:
Summary: Eye Opening
Review: This was the book that opened my eyes to the whole "alternative history" movement. The world seemed so mundane before this! I think I even got stronger in my religion (Islam) because of feelings initially stirred from reading this. I'm grateful to Hancock for leading me to John Anthony West, R.A. Schwaller de Lubiscz, Robert Bauval, Charles Hapgood and the brilliant Clesson Harvey among others. A truly amazing read!
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining and thought provoking
Review: The findings in this book are indeed entertaining. Many of the facts he provides are vague, based on his interpretation of ancient myths that have been translated into English from their native languages. But for a first time reader of psudo-archeaology books I found it very fascinating. Since the author is a journalist his writing is never dry, always engaging. And his massive references at the end of the book are impressive. He combines bits and pieces from a large body of scientists in various fields of knowledge and others to support his one theory about where, when and how there was an ancient civilization previous to any we had known of before. Some of his theories I have a hard time agreeing with, such as his opinion that the ancients that built the Sphinx made a lion shaped monument because it pointed to Leo? What proof has he that an old prior civilization called that constellation Leo? Why not a monkey or pig? But the theory that the markings on the Sphinx were made by water erosion and that sufficient water could not have fallen in the past few millenia AND that this theory has been back up in agreement with geologists is very impressive. Also the theory that the ancient Amaya language appears to be a designed language that could be used as a computer-conversion language was interesting. (The books was written and published prior to 1995, I have found references more recent than that, on the net, saying this is indeed working out) Rather that saying he is a non-scientist and therefore has no crediablity as such, remember that he is an investigative reporter and has compiled many references to support what he believes he has found. My opinion of him may change as I read other books by him and others but for a first reading this has me very intrigued, I'd love to go to Antartica and dig around myself to see what could be found and see those fossil areas myself....
| 
